Skip to main content
Log in

In Computation, Parallel is Nothing, Physical Everything

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Andrew Boucher (1997) argues that ``parallel computation is fundamentally different from sequential computation'' (p. 543), and that this fact provides reason to be skeptical about whether AI can produce a genuinely intelligent machine. But parallelism, as I prove herein, is irrelevant. What Boucher has inadvertently glimpsed is one small part of a mathematical tapestry portraying the simple but undeniable fact that physical computation can be fundamentally different from ordinary, ``textbook'' computation (whether parallel or sequential). This tapestry does indeed immediately imply that human cognition may be uncomputable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J. (1993), Turing's World 3.0, Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boucher, A. (1997), 'Parallel machines', Minds and Machines 7, pp. 542–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, H. and Papaimitriou, C. (1981), Elements of the Theory of Computation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegelmann, H. and Sontag, E. (1994), 'Analog computation via neural nets', Theoretical Computer Science 131, pp. 331–360.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bringsjord, S. In Computation, Parallel is Nothing, Physical Everything. Minds and Machines 11, 95–99 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011257022242

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011257022242

Navigation